It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Dan Rather explains compromised, corporate, journalism

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+41 more 
posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:38 AM
Perhaps this video will open the eyes of those who used to watch this man try to tell the truth.

Corporate journalism = spin, and infotainment

MSM news is just as credible as that 3:00 am infomercial.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:04 AM

Mr. Rather makes it quite clear how "thing have changed" since Reagan vetoed the Fairness Doctrine from becoming law, which ensured equal coverage by all sides for controversial topics and issues. Since then it's increasingly become little Moar than the bottom line and that Oh So Almighty dollar.

So bye - bye went the fair news cry...
Let 'em sell you their tales, no matter if it's a lie...

And them good ole' boys thinkin' this is not right...
singing that was the day the news died... that was the day the news died.


Dan Rather

[edit on 8-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:37 AM
The next generation.

Those of us old enough to remember real news and trustworthy reporting are incredulous at what has happened to journalism, but what about the young?
Where do they get news they can trust? Thank God for Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, but what will be the world view of young people informed by irony?

This perfect storm of greed, selfish interests, corporatism, and an administration dedicated to it, has created an environment that is truly frightening for many people.

What we need are journalists dedicated to the facts guiding us through, but sadly for democracy that is not what we have.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:55 AM
Jefferson said an independent press was essential to democracy...It still is.

What's happening to our news organizations may simply be another sign of the collapse of our Great Republic.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:00 AM
As 'consumers' of news we can only pray, hope, and press, for true journalistic integrity to force its way into the light of day.

It is clear that is not desirable from the perspective of the transnational corporate interests. They have been allowed to consolidate control over free speech in journalism, our most significant tool in the effort to thwart despotism, tyranny, fascism, treason, crimes against humanity, and the invalidation of human rights everywhere.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by TaZCoN

so true...thanks for sharing this..

the truth shall set you free!!!

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:19 AM
As Bill Moyers said:

"The Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column of Democracy."

Now, if only they could become the fifth column of 'democracy', in ironic quotes, exposing the hypocrisy and deceit of the 'public spin' game... but that wouldn't be in their best interests, would it?

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:25 AM
It's a huge joke that roughly all news outlets are now owned by 5 entities. It's a point I have tried to stress many times over in the way 'American' news is reported to the masses. It's about the dollar and not about truth or news. Fox proved this when they fired three investigative reporters in Florida over pushing to tell the truth on a project they were working on. They sued Fox for burying the story and firing them for trying to present the facts. The supreme court found in favor of Fox not because the evidence was there to support their side of the story but because the judges stated that a news agency is not required to report the 'truth'. They are a private corporation that can report what they want, however they want to as long as it doesn't slander anyone. In other words, they can lie to the public and not be held accountable.

It's a joke and it has indeed been happening over the past couple decades. What needs to happen is what happened with AT&T in the 80's. The government needs to step back in and break up these major news organizations. Ownership needs to be spread back out over hundreds of owners instead of less than 10.

This way corporations can report whatever they want to deflect away from their criminal activities. It will help to speed along the destruction of this country.


posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

The fairness doctrine is what is truly a joke here.

Perhaps we should just have journalists that want to do their jobs and report the news fairly, instead of pushing their own agenda.

We don't need the government to come in and make sure everything is "fair". There are enough sources out there now that people can get their information wherever they want.

If you don't like the news, don't watch it. But keep government out of it.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by nyk537

I can appreciate your thinking here, but I still fail to see the "harm" in requiring the Networks to afford equal representation from all sides on critical and controversial issues and concerns. - not regulated by government, assured by government [law].

While yourself, I, and the majority of ATS members may take the time to seek as many perspectives possible, consider Joe Q. Public...

No matter their Network of choice, they're assured equal exposure to all sides, voices, and opinions - better able to form their own. (?)

[edit on 8-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:51 AM
I think we have lost sight on what the real problem here is. It isn't the fact that less than 10 corporations own the news media. It isn't the death of the fairness doctrine. It isn't that the Supreme Court ruled that "news" organizations can report lies as truth.

The real problem is complacency, plain and simple. The "consumers" of news are complacent in what they are consuming. Most viewers will accept any news as truth as long as it fits in with their world views. They are spoon fed the information, but not against their will. They eat it up willingly and happily. People will believe any story that makes them feel comfortable in their view of how things "are". People flock to sources of information that reinforce their prejudices and validate their existing opinions.

Is this right? Of course not. Is this natural? Unfortunately, for the most part, it is. People desire to belong. When people see an opinion piece or a news article that takes the same point of view that they themselves believe in, they tend to accept it as truth, whether it is in fact true or not.

The solution is not simple. Government regulation can do nothing to solve this problem. In fact, it could exacerbate it. Breaking up the ownership of the news congolmerates will not solve this problem either. Public funding of the news won't solve it either. Onlythrough education and the gradual changing of human nature itself will we ultimately solve this problem.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
reply to post by nyk537

No matter their Network of choice, they're assured equal exposure to all sides, voices, and opinions - better able to form their own. (?)

The problem is, who gets to decide what sides get to be heard in the first place? Not every issue has only 2 sides. How many different opinions get to be heard? Who decides what opinions are valid enough to get airtime and which ones are not?

The fairness doctrine sounds good in theory, but there is no way to enforce it fairly to all parties concerned.

[edited for spelling]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by BomSquad]

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by BomSquad

I hear you there. It does come down to complacency but it is not the real problem. Why? Because of the psychology of what is happening. I know, it's easy to say that but it's true. People will believe what they are told on the news. Period. Why? Because they were brought up to believe and trust in the news. It's not about them being complacent. They (being the general public) don't KNOW any better. Why? Well, partly because less than 10 owners now control virtually everything they get as news. That means only a very FEW points of view are brought into the equation.

As for the lie as truth part, well, it's also well documented (from a psychology point of view) that if one is told a lie enough times it becomes truth to them. Not everyone is exposed to the diversity that the internet brings. Also, many of those that are exposed to the internet don't necessarily use it for news. Many use it for networking, gaming, school research, etc. So the bulk of what they deem as news still comes from the TV. And that is the problem.

It's like blaming the kids that grew up within the welfare system for ending up on welfare themselves. In the majority of these cases they KNEW NO BETTER. Sure, it's easy for most who never have been exposed to this to simply say, "They have every opportunity available to them that I had." Well, that's a big fat lie. Period. It's something that those people say to ease their conscience.

You see, I grew up in that situation and yes, I just happened to get myself out of the system. But my sister is still stuck in it with 5 kids of her own.

Okay, that was a bit of a stretch to give as an example. Suffice it to say that it is easier to put the blame on the masses as being 'complacent' because it removes the burden from you and I for trying to awaken them to the truth. Well, that's the easy way out. They are complacent because they know no better. They are being raised in the government controlled public school systems to absolutely trust the government and the media. Why? That may be something to ask yourself. Why would they be doing that?

Because it is the best way to get the masses to believe the lies you want them to believe.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by BomSquad

The problem is, who gets to decide what sides get to be heard in the first place? Not every issue has only 2 sides. How many different opinions get to be heard? Who decides what opinions are valid enough to get airtime and which ones are not?

The fairness doctrine sounds good in theory, but there is no way to enforce it fairly to all parties concerned.

[edited for spelling]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by BomSquad]

Then what needs to happen is that the courts need to hold the news outlets to higher standards. Or there needs to be a law passed that if news outlets report something as this way and it turns out to be wrong then the lawsuits should flow.

I hate lawsuits and what they have done but if you start hitting this big guys where it hurts, their money, then maybe they will change their ways.

Then again, they will start to report only the entertainment end of the news and ignore the real news completely. Oh wait, they are already doing that.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by BomSquad
The fairness doctrine sounds good in theory, but there is no way to enforce it fairly to all parties concerned.

That's because one of it's main intents was to silence by "fairness" the effectiveness of Conservative talk radio. The television media has both sides representing them in the main stream, but radio is completely dominated by conservative talk. A quick look at the ratings for Air America will tell you where the issue stands with radio listeners.

The fairness doctrine only seeks to make it fair for one side, when in reality, we shouldn't need fairness at all.

Plus, as it has been pointed out, there is no real way to regulate this. Who can decide what is fair and what isn't? The arguing and bickering over this would completely cripple media in every form.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by BomSquad

The problem is, who gets to decide what sides get to be heard in the first place? Not every issue has only 2 sides. How many different opinions get to be heard? Who decides what opinions are valid enough to get airtime and which ones are not?

Certainly. A tough cookie to crumble no doubt, and we quite obviously can't rely on current "audience" viewing trends to force any change within network approach. Why should they Give us the newz when they can Sell us the newz -

The fairness doctrine sounds good in theory, but there is no way to enforce it fairly to all parties concerned.

I realize it's not perfect by design, though a step in the right direction when first enacted. My initial mention was intended more as a means to "timeline" the seeming radical decline since, with regards accurate and or truly investigative journalism.


Complacency? Damn straight... or so it would seem.

SO?... how are we to attempt a flip-of-the-scales with regards to those who Seek a better understanding as opposed to those who would rather just be Fed their better understanding. (?)

"Welcome to [insert network here]. Would you like to supersize that orderl?" - Simpsons, American Idol, Survival Series, Faux Reality, Resident Pundit ... we have it all

Sad... but true.


posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:13 PM
We don't need the fairness doctrine brought back. If you want liberal spin on the radio, turn to NPR or listen to any station that plays Green Day, Rage, Ministry, or basically 90% of modern hard rock. If you want a conservative spin on the radio, turn on the EIB network
, Hannity, FOX News radio, or a traditional country station. If you want unbiased news, turn OFF you radio and hit the internet.

The problem with the fairness doctrine is that it's a huge cop out. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing unbiased news or information to the people. It is purely an example of the Democrats discovering that the average radio listener doesn't want to listen to liberal propaganda and instead of accepting defeat, they try to change the rules to force the pendulum to swing their way. It would be like the NFL declaring that any team playing the Cowboys automatically gets spotted 21 points to make the game more "fair."

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:19 PM
In the realm of the more bizarre related to Dan Rather, 9/11, and a few other things, please have a look at this thread...

"What's the frequency Kenneth?!"

Starred and flagged here TaZCon.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:44 PM
Another problem with today's news is the loss of competant journalism. Journalistic pieces have been largely replaced with opinion pieces. Even the pieces that are touted as journalistic are mostly a vehicle to get an opinion across.

Whatever happened to news reports containing the news (i.e. a report containing verifiable facts concerning a specific event or occurance)? Now no "news" report is complete without the reporters opinion emblazoned all over it.

I remember when the news consisted of actual reporting of events and that opinion was reserved for an editorial segment at the end of the broadcast.

We blame the media, but they are largely supplying the product that a majority of the public is asking for. They want to hear that "their side" is winning and that the "other side" is evil incarnate.

The news should be nothing more than the who, what, where, why and how of an event. Opinions should be confined to editorial pieces, and clearly labeled as such. I think that would go a long way in educating the public on the difference between facts and opinion.

Another, unrelated item...

Dan Rather once said that there is no bias in today's media. When asked his opinion of the New York Times, he declared it to be "mainstream". I believe, that he honestly believes, that there is no bias in today's media and that the New York Times is unbiased and mainstream reporting. Conservatives believe Fox News is mainstream and MSNBC is a bunch of liberal rubbish. Liberals believe that MSNBC is mainstream and Fox News is a bunch of Neo-Conservative trash. All I've got to say is that everyone believes that their beliefs are/should be mainstream, but for everyone who believes this, there is someone else out there who believes you to be an extremist. One thing we've all got to realize is that there is no mainstream, there is only degrees of opinion from one extreme to the other. There is no true middle ground, only degrees of extremity or popularity.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

I respect your position, but; in an environment where the media's content can be editorially controlled by transnational corporations with vested political interests in how 'our' government structures and implements laws and policies, what is the safeguard against abuse? How can we expect the corporate interests not to 'use' our nations various 'mediums' to falsely report, or spin events in a manner contrary to the well-being of the people?

We, as a nation, relied upon the journalistic integrity of reporters and editors to resist the temptation to enter the arena of political relevance in deference to the principles and ethics traditionally associated with their profession.

We now know that the naive trust we placed in the 'system' was 'ripe for the picking' and the FCC and government representatives exercised no meaningful oversight to protect us.

The so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' at least addressed the issue. What does so now? Anything? Telling people to tune to multiple different sources to get the 'full picture' seems to contradict the meme of what the 'news' is all about.

Shall we now mandate all media must pre-announce before any content that the news is their editorial position and not necessarily a source of factual data with unbiased input? Will every news report end with that guy speaking at 175 miles per hour sounding out the 'fine print' of how they aren't necessarily exercising journalism as much as entertainment?

Surely there must be some way to make something called 'The News' to actually be what we commonly recognize as 'real news' and not just the convenient portion of it for the benefit of the corporate community.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in